Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
References: <20201112230043.28987-1-aouledameur@baylibre.com>
 <0f679c62aa48603ea43a8fa4819d688baa802d73.camel@pengutronix.de>
 <1jima91e92.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com>
 <48332a44241f3c06966420277060b6048c1f77d0.camel@pengutronix.de>
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.10; emacs 27.1
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
To:     Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur@baylibre.com>,
        Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] reset: make shared pulsed reset controls re-triggerable
In-reply-to: <48332a44241f3c06966420277060b6048c1f77d0.camel@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <1j4klp1cgm.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:41:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk


On Mon 16 Nov 2020 at 17:36, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 16:13 +0100, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>> On Fri 13 Nov 2020 at 16:04, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 00:00 +0100, Amjad Ouled-Ameur wrote:
>> > > The current reset framework API does not allow to release what is done by
>> > > reset_control_reset(), IOW decrement triggered_count. Add the new
>> > > reset_control_rearm() call to do so.
>> > > 
>> > > When reset_control_reset() has been called once, the counter
>> > > triggered_count, in the reset framework, is incremented i.e the resource
>> > > under the reset is in-use and the reset should not be done again.
>> > > reset_control_rearm() would be the way to state that the resource is
>> > > no longer used and, that from the caller's perspective, the reset can be
>> > > fired again if necessary.
>> > > 
>> > > Signed-off-by: Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur@baylibre.com>
>> > > Reported-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
>> > > ---
>> > > Change since v1: [0]
>> > > * Renamed the new call from reset_control_(array_)resettable to 
>> > > reset_control_(array_)rearm
>> > > * Open-coded reset_control_array_rearm to check for errors before
>> > > decrementing triggered_count because we cannot roll back in case an
>> > > error occurs while decrementing one of the rstc.
>> > > * Reworded the new call's description.
>> > 
>> > Thank you, applied to reset/next.
>> 
>> Hi Philipp,
>> 
>> Would it be possible to get an immutable branch/tag with this ?
>> It would allow to move forward on the USB side, without waiting for the
>> next rc1.
>
> Here you go,
>
> The following changes since commit 3650b228f83adda7e5ee532e2b90429c03f7b9ec:
>
>   Linux 5.10-rc1 (2020-10-25 15:14:11 -0700)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
>   git://git.pengutronix.de/git/pza/linux.git reset/shared-retrigger
>
> for you to fetch changes up to 557acb3d2cd9c82de19f944f6cc967a347735385:
>
>   reset: make shared pulsed reset controls re-triggerable (2020-11-16 17:05:28 +0100)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Amjad Ouled-Ameur (1):
>       reset: make shared pulsed reset controls re-triggerable
>
>  drivers/reset/core.c  | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/reset.h |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
>

Thx Philipp !

> regards
> Philipp